Friday, April 29, 2011

PA Marcellus Shale (Gov. Corbett) Gas Fee vs Severance Tax

We lean with Governor Tom Corbett in considering a fee on the Oil and Gas industry/drillers vs a new gas severance tax. We don't think the latter would pass Constitutional review, and years and years would go by before anything is determined from litigation.

In the meantime, drillers are willing - it appears - to the imposition of a fee to be imposed and its proceeds to be kept at the local level.

That makes far more sense than having any revenues from the tax go first to the state (in part to cover the state budget deficits created by past Administration) then some to the localities where the drilling occurs.

We urge as well that the Governor review the potential any of the gas itself go to China, rather than wholly being distributed across Pennsylvania, and held in reserve for future generations of Pennsylvanians.

No gas to China and energy independence should be the slogans for a renewed Pennsylvania.

Net the Truth Online

Gas fee proposed by state to benefit localsBy Brad Bumsted and Andrew ConteTRIBUNE-REVIEWFriday, April 29, 2011 Last updated: 7:14 am

HARRISBURG -- A much-anticipated proposal by the Senate's top Republican to levy a fee on Marcellus shale gas drilling touched off debate on Thursday among supporters and opponents over the industry assessment and who would get the money.

Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson County, said his bill -- to be introduced in a week or so -- gives 60 percent of the collected fees to counties and municipalities with deep wells, as well as townships and boroughs that neighbor drilling production sites. The bill splits the other 40 percent between conservation districts statewide and environmental funds for cleanup and infrastructure, although he said that's up for negotiation.

The fee would be retroactive for 2010 and would raise $45 million for last year. It would bring in $76 million this year and would rise to at least $150 million by 2014, Scarnati said.

"I have to believe this is in the sweet spot of where I believe most legislators will be," Scarnati said.

The senator said it was an attempt to meet the parameters of fellow Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, who opposes a severance tax but has said he would consider such an impact fee if the revenue remains in local hands and does not go into the state general fund.

"It's the beginning of a discussion," said Kevin Harley, Corbett's press secretary.

Governments would use the fee to help cover damage to roads and bridges, for maintenance and improvement costs for water and sewage systems, and for emergency responder costs, Scarnati said.

Scarnati said it is a fee and not a tax because the money does not go to the state general fund.

"What's the difference between a fee and tax? Gov. Corbett's pen," Scarnati said. "That will be the ultimate test."

The Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association, which has opposed a severance tax in the past, issued a statement saying its members are open to discussing an impact fee that raises money to offset problems caused by the industry.

Drillers are open to an impact fee that provides money for local communities as long as it's "clear, straightforward and competitive," Kathryn Klaber, president of the Cecil-based Marcellus Shale Coalition trade group, said in a statement.

"Our industry understands that while there are tremendous financial opportunities in Marcellus shale development, there also can be impacts felt by our host communities," Klaber said.

Our commitment has been to provide viewers with an effort to find truth on a variety of public policy issues, and relay findings, to expand a base of knowledge for viewer information and opinion-forming, no matter one's political affiliation.

We see danger for us all on three fronts:

An announced potential for a global financial crisis and projected global currency, global government, and new world order.

A coming to fruition plan for some 34 states to propose a uniform amendment or amendments to the U.S. Constitution which may automatically present an Article V Convention.

An organized effort by populists to support state legislatures to call an Article V Convention for any number of reasons.

We continue to work to present the kind of information to convince viewers to be ever vigilant. No matter whom we cite on our pages, when we find groups, organizations, political Parties, or notable individuals in support of any one of the above, we are wary, no matter if we agree on other issues of importance.

We have for instance cited Judge Napolitano's Freedom series on the Constitution broadcast on Fox Nation, yet we remain strongly wary of him due to his stated position to encourage Tea Party participants and others to push state legislatures to adopt a resolution to call for a 2nd Convention.

We cannot stress how important it is for your objection to be heard to your own state's legislature and Governor. According to tracking results from some notables including DeWeese and Gary Kreeps - barring it may be ruled previous resolutions adopted by an individual state and already on the formal-call list are voided due to non-uniformity or outdatedness - there may already be some 31 or 32 potentially valid Convention Calls.

34 state resolutions are the magic number which will initiate, basically automatically, a call for convening an Article V Convention.

This site also notes an essay by Gary Kreep, co-founder of the United States Justice Foundation. He too notes how very close an automatic Constitutional Convention call is given factors that even include some states' attempts to rescind former calls.

We also note an article by Kelleigh Nelson Saving the Republic Part 3 which disputes an automatic call is only some two states away. We also note Nelson's reference to a book we also have in our files which is among the best we've read.

Constitution In Crisis Joan Collins and Ken Hill

We'll list other material relied upon to come to the conclusion that despite how many states in actuality have standing convention calls, action is paramount today to thwart a potential gathering storm for support such as Rand Paul's and Judge Andrew Napalitano's.

Our hope is to be among those who continue to warn it is imperative a 2nd Constitutional Convention never happen. The mechanism for Congress to act on presenting its own Amendment or Amendments to the Constitution is already in place. The normal route has not been used all that much because it is known the Amendment or Amendments which are then ratified by the next step - states ratification process - will stand as an alteration of the U.S. Constitution unless and until a subsequent Congress mounts a similar process to repeal the Amendment.

So many others have long-standing in noting the absolute dangers of an Article V Convention.

Among them:

Phyllis Schlafly

McManus

John Birch Society

World Net Daily

We do not claim support with the named on every issue.

It is crucial we, the people of the United States prevent our representatives from enacting any measures that take away U.S. sovereignty and curb or curtail individual and unalienable rights.

You can help by becoming informed and using the power of the pen to attempt to convince such as Rand Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano of these noted dangers of an Article V Constitutional Convention.

Climatologist Skeptic James Spann

Incognito for security purposes

My blog was caught twice in a robot spam review and had been offline for several months. Fortunately, Blogger Help Forum exchanges with a real person and top contributor resulted in Net the Truth Online being deemed OK. Should the spam-robots misidentify us again, here's where and what happened. My blog pre=this=mess was going just fine. Then I received notice while away my blog was deleted. Help. http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/blogger/thread?tid=1714c2aa73405a98&hl=en&fid=1714c2aa73405a980004933503778adc